The Miracles: History or Myth?
Sisyphus ·
April 17, 2012 at 4:41pm
In particular, let's focus on Christ's miracles, so famously redacted in Jefferson's reworking of the New Testament. I was raised in a church that knew the miracles were historical. At a modern religious university the doctors of theology poo-pooed the miracles as cultural-religious theater, with many of the magician's tricks known and commonly practiced in biblical times. Jesus of Nazareth played by Penn Gillette and his twelve Tellers.
Pick a side. Take a stand. It's no skin off my back if you go over 200 words.
- Comment (116)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Mark Wilson
These events are so far historically removed from us that it's practically impossible to evaluate their truth scientifically (e.g. by evaluating circumstantial evidence).
One need not go back 2,000 years to find reports of miracles. Two more recent examples would include the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima and the 67 (and counting) miraculous cures at Lourdes.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
There clearly is no evidence in the Gospels to suggest that the miracles described were examples of misapprehension or deception. At the same token there's no evidence they occurred at all. Apart from the Gospels there are no personal accounts of eye witnesses, from Roman soldiers, from Jews at the time or any other source that describe in detail what may or may not have occurred. If, as Matthew describes that those who were buried in their graves awoke and wandered about after Christ's resurrection one would assume that someone other than "Matthew" would have noticed it and there would be some non-Gospel reference to it. Since many of the corpses presumably had been dead for sometime that surely would have been a sight worth noting and writing about from a non-early Christian source. So, where is the historical corroboration? Shouldn't that be a requirement for history? Myth, at least my understanding of it, has no such requirement.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
10 cents
Brian Watt
Which concept of God did you have in mind? · 8 minutes ago
The basic concept that there can be a non-corporeal powerful being that can create, destroy, or change matter. This maybe a poor analogy but here goes compared to germs a human would be godlike in our abilities. A person can kill millions of germs or help grow millions of germs.
Does a germ believe in me?
Does what I do look like miracles to the germ?
Does what a germ believe affect my actions? · 16 minutes ago
Germs, microorganisms, are not conscious beings. I think it is a poor analogy as you suggest because it is merely an analogy of scale. Your basic concept of a non-coporeal powerful being doesn't square with the notion that human beings - not microorganisms, not beetles, not armadillos, not chimpanzees - were made in the image of God. Of course, one could argue that chimps came pretty darn close genetically and by appearance...and I have seen some rather hairy men at the beach that looked more like gorillas than humans. :-)
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Joseph Stanko
Mark Wilson
These events are so far historically removed from us that it's practically impossible to evaluate their truth scientifically (e.g. by evaluating circumstantial evidence).
One need not go back 2,000 years to find reports of miracles. Two more recent examples would include the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima and the 67 (and counting) miraculous cures at Lourdes. · 15 minutes ago
Regarding the "Miracle of the Sun". Just the first source I stumbled upon on the Internet. I'm sure there are many more.
Regarding Lourdes.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt
There clearly is no evidence in the Gospels to suggest that the miracles described were examples of misapprehension or deception.
Thank you, that was precisely my point.
Brian Watt
If, as Matthew describes that those who were buried in their graves awoke and wandered about after Christ's resurrection one would assume that someone other than "Matthew" would have noticed it and there would be some non-Gospel reference to it. Since many of the corpses presumably had been dead for sometime that surely would have been a sight worth noting and writing about from a non-early Christian source. So, where is the historical corroboration?
That depends how many people saw them, how many of those that did were both able to write and had access to writing materials (scare and expensive back then), and how many of those writings survived 2,000 years.
Also, would we not expect that many who witnessed such miracles would as a result have become Christians? But then you would discount their testimony, because apparently you only consider non-Christian sources reliable. So even if we did find such an account buried in a cave somewhere, would it sway you?
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Joseph Stanko:
That depends how many people saw them, how many of those that did were both able to write and had access to writing materials (scare and expensive back then), and how many of those writings survived 2,000 years.
Also, would we not expect that many who witnessed such miracles would as a result have become Christians? But then you would discount their testimony, because apparently you only consider non-Christian sources reliable. So even if we did find such an account buried in a cave somewhere, would it sway you? · 2 minutes ago
I wouldn't make presumptions about what sources I would or would not trust...or that I would only consider "non-Christian sources reliable". If we find any archeological evidence anywhere let's examine it closely and meticulously and rule out whether it's a forgery first. The problem with the passage in Matthew (or whomever wrote that Gospel) is that a claim that many people witnessed this event is not supported by any corroborating evidence by Christians or non-Christians alike. I'm just curious how this can be taken as an historical event and not a mythic event.
Edited on April 17, 2012 at 11:54amDec '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt
Germs, microorganisms, are not conscious beings. I think it is a poor analogy as you suggest because it is merely an analogy of scale. Your basic concept of a non-coporeal powerful being doesn't square with the notion that human beings - not microorganisms, not beetles, not armadillos, not chimpanzees - were made in the image of God. Of course, one could argue that chimps came pretty darn close genetically and by appearance...and I have seen some rather hairy men at the beach that looked more like gorillas than humans. :-) ·
How do you know germs and microorganisms are not conscious beings?
My point is not only a difference in scale but existence. Humans think and plan consciously where as you point out germs do not.
Are you serious in thinking God is the image of man? I can take a photograph of the sun and print the picture but I don't confuse the real sun with a piece of paper. Your thinking would have the real sun being just a giant photograph, right? God is not a man or corporal but spirit. I believe man is made in the spiritual image of God not corporal image.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Consciousness requires a brain. Microorganisms don't have brains.
Your last paragraph is nonsense and completely misinterprets what I'm saying. Let's refer to Genesis 1:26-7, shall we?:
Now you can choose to believe that "likeness" doesn't mean physical/corporeal likeness - and means instead a "spiritual" likeness or image if you like but there's nothing in the text to suggest this. It would simply be your interpretation.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
@Fake John Galt - Of course, by your definition just about anything can be classified as a miracle including picking one's nose or navel or inadvertently stepping on ants as one makes one's way to one's car for the morning commute. I mean think of all the physiological processes and mechanics at work! Yowzers!
There is a mathematical probability that thousands, millions or billions of planets in the universe contain some forms of life and are routinely killed by storms, volcanic events, natural forces, gamma ray bursts, comets or asteroids or black holes. That, of course, is a miracle as well.
And as long as we're lumping just about any physical phenomena into the miracle mix, let's say that disease, deformities, still births, murder, genocide and warfare are miraculous, too - since in some mysterious way it must be all part of God's creation and plan.
Or we can define the term more precisely and say that miracles are phenomena that some believe they've directly experienced and that which defy the known laws of physics and our understanding of how the universe works -- and then have a more sensible discussion.
Dec '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt
Here is a quote from Theological Wordbook that explains the Hebrew word for image in Gen. 1:26.
Man was made in God’s image (ṣelem) and likeness (dĕmût) which is then explained as his having dominion over God’s creation as vice-regent. Ps 8:5–8 [H 6–9] is similar citing man’s God-given glory, honor and rule. God’s image obviously does not consist in man’s body which was formed from earthly matter, but in his spiritual, intellectual, moral likeness to God from whom his animating breath came. The emphasis of the prohibition of idols is that they are all material created things. God is non-material, the creator (Deut 4:15–19).
Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (768). Chicago: Moody Press.
Emphasis added.
Are you giving your personal opinion or drawing from some theological work?
Edited on April 17, 2012 at 3:02pmNov '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt
There clearly is no evidence in the Gospels to suggest that the miracles described were examples of misapprehension or deception. At the same token there's no evidence they occurred at all. . . . If, as Matthew describes that those who were buried in their graves awoke and wandered about after Christ's resurrection one would assume that someone other than "Matthew" would have noticed it and there would be some non-Gospel reference to it. Since many of the corpses presumably had been dead for sometime that surely would have been a sight worth noting and writing about from a non-early Christian source. So, where is the historical corroboration?
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to "many of the corpses." Perhaps you could clarify? Jesus rose from the dead, and Lazarus, but who else?
As for historical evidence, there is the fact that a small group of uneducated and demoralized followers of a man who had been tortured to death turned around and within a very few years went out and were willing to die for him explicitly because of his resurrection. It's not airtight, but it's supportive of faith.
Dec '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt this is from a Commentary on Gen 1:26.
There is more difficulty in deciding in what the likeness to God consisted. Certainly not in the bodily form, the upright position, or commanding aspect of the man, since God has no bodily form, and the man’s body was formed from the dust of the ground; nor in the dominion of man over nature, for this is unquestionably ascribed to man simply as the consequence or effluence of his likeness to God. Man is the image of God by virtue of his spiritual nature. of the breath of God by which the being, formed from the dust of the earth, became a living soul. The image of God consists, therefore, in the spiritual personality of man, though not merely in unity of self-consciousness and self-determination, or in the fact that man was created a consciously free Ego; for personality is merely the basis and form of the divine likeness, not its real essence.
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament. (Ge 1:24–31). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
May '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
I follow Newman in holding that whether we believe in miracles or not comes down to "antecedent probabilities", which is to say, what our life experience and personal choices to date have inclined us to believe. If we have lived accepting the Gospel accounts as true and the accounts of medieval miracles as true accounts, then we have no difficulty believing in the miracles of Lourdes and Fatima. If we have a materialist view of reality and reject belief in God and the very notion of miracles, then no amount of evidence in their favor will convince us. We will find ways of explaining it away. That 75,000 people witnessed the miracle at Fatima (which very pious young children had said would happen on the day and at the hour that it happened), we will dismiss out of hand. It was mass hysteria, suggestion or projection, or whatever.
Miracles are given to test the heart. They reveal who we are. They reveal what we love and what we hate, what we hope for and expect and look for, and what we fear and dread and avoid and deny.
Dec '11
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Lucy Pevensie
Brian Watt is referring to Matthew 27:51-53. Hope this helps.
Matthew 27:51–53 (NCV)
51 Then the curtain in the Temple was torn into two pieces, from the top to the bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks broke apart. 52 The graves opened, and many of God’s people who had died were raised from the dead. 53 They came out of the graves after Jesus was raised from the dead and went into the holy city, where they appeared to many people.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
10 cents: Brian Watt
Here is a quote from Theological Wordbook that explains the Hebrew word for image in Gen. 1:26.
Man was made in God’s image (ṣelem) and likeness (dĕmût) which is then explained as his having dominion over God’s creation as vice-regent. Ps 8:5–8 [H 6–9] is similar citing man’s God-given glory, honor and rule. God’s image obviously does not consist in man’s body which was formed from earthly matter, but in his spiritual, intellectual, moral likeness to God from whom his animating breath came.The emphasis of the prohibition of idols is that they are all material created things. God is non-material, the creator (Deut 4:15–19).
Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999).Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (768). Chicago: Moody Press.
Emphasis added.
Are you giving your personal opinion or drawing from some theological work?
A theological interpretation (as is what's described in your comment #32) and doesn't mean that it's an accurate interpretation of what the author of Genesis intended at all...it's an opinion.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Lucy Pevensie
As for historical evidence, there is the fact that a small group of uneducated and demoralized followers of a man who had been tortured to death turned around and within a very few years went out and were willing to die for him explicitly because of his resurrection. It's not airtight, but it's supportive of faith. · 34 minutes ago
This only describes that a group of people organized many decades and more substantively over 100 to 200 years or more after they believed that someone referred to as Jesus was said to have lived and performed numerous miracles and ascended into heaven...to form a religion. Airtight it definitely is not...not even close. If the gospels are to be taken as history then the contradictions between and among them at some point need to be reconciled.
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Brian Watt
There clearly is no evidence in the Gospels to suggest that the miracles described were examples of misapprehension or deception. At the same token there's no evidence they occurred at all. Apart from the Gospels there are no personal accounts of eye witnesses, from Roman soldiers, from Jews at the time or any other source that describe in detail what may or may not have occurred. If, as Matthew describes that those who were buried in their graves awoke and wandered about after Christ's resurrection one would assume that someone other than "Matthew" would have noticed it and there would be some non-Gospel reference to it. Since many of the corpses presumably had been dead for sometime that surely would have been a sight worth noting and writing about from a non-early Christian source. So, where is the historical corroboration?
I always wondered why people thought that Christianity exploded like wildfire if, at the very least, these eyewitnesses' stories weren't believed. And, one might add, maybe all the Gospels and other writings are from Christian sources because it would be hard to retain a "non-Christian" status after witnessing them.
Oct '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Knowledge of the Creator God is revealed, not learned. We may choose to believe whether we are a creation or an accident. We then may choose, if we choose to believe that there is a Creator God, to be willing to be accountable.
If we choose to be accountable to the Creator God, then He will begin to reveal Himself to us. If not, then not.
We then are left to examine how we will know Him in practice. The authors of the Bible, over a period of centuries, uniformly claim to be making an authoritative record, revealed by the Creator Himself, of who He is.
He reveals Himself in grandeur and He reveals Himself in intimacy. Through the authors He states that "God is Love". He speaks to those He loves and He hears the prayers of those He loves.
In other words, those who choose to be accountable to the Creator God have revealed to them His love and grandeur. Those who choose otherwise have nothing revealed to them. God is not learned, He reveals Himself to the willing heart.
You may call us, the willing hearts, credulous, but God calls us His beloved.
Miracles? of course.
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I always wondered why people thought that Christianity exploded like wildfire if, at the very least, these eyewitnesses' stories weren't believed. And, one might add, maybe all the Gospels and other writings are from Christian sources because it would be hard to retain a "non-Christian" status after witnessing them. · 6 minutes ago
Did Christianity spread like "wildfire"? Or did it take some 313 years after Christ was said to have lived - when Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan which prohibited religious persecution?
Jun '10
Re: The Miracles: History or Myth?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I always wondered why people thought that Christianity exploded like wildfire if, at the very least, these eyewitnesses' stories weren't believed. And, one might add, maybe all the Gospels and other writings are from Christian sources because it would be hard to retain a "non-Christian" status after witnessing them. · 21 minutes ago
Where are the witnesses to Matthew's mass resurrection event? Just because Matthew makes a claim that others witnessed it doesn't mean that anyone did. Believing that something is true and factual does not make it true and factual. Belief is an awesome force. It can create something as beneficial to humankind as Christianity (with all its faults) or the American experiment - or something as reprehensible and abhorrent as Hitler and as sick as the North Korean regime.